What We're in For
Troy Senik, Ed. ·
February 9, 2012 at 6:08pm
If Rick Santorum continues to surge to national prominence and perhaps -- just perhaps -- to a serious shot at the nomination, expect to see the media prominently displaying more photos like this one, taken by the Associated Press on Wednesday and now making the rounds in the MSM (it's even on the front page of the Washington Post today)
The media, I think, will be keen to run with this angle, knowing that Americans will divide into those who find this picture moving and inspiring and those who find it creepy and unbecoming. And you know what? Maybe it's time we had that fight.
- Comment (138)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: What We're in For
This could explain why Mr Obama has raised the issue now, but I doubt it (it's hard to explain any other way - perhaps arrogance?).
I am glad I am in good company with Abe Lincoln in being agnostic, but wishing I was more religious. It's maybe why Mr Santorum's religion and social conservatism don't worry me. I recall that the vast majority of Americans are religious, dare I say Judeo-Christian, so it's hard to see how the Republican party could be so damaged by all this.
The secular liberals are so noisy that we tend to think they are the majority, but they ain't.
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
Christopher Esget
Dan, the issue was never stem-cell research. The controversy was over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. · 2 hours ago
Actually it is even more specific than that. Human embryonic derived stem cells. A lot of work is done on similar mouse cells. In fact the first test for iPS cells were done in mice and then in monkeys, before tried in human cells.
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
Dan Hanson:
People like me should have a natural home in the Republican party, but if it becomes the party of creationism, school prayer, anti gay marriage, and another round of the endless abortion debate, you'll lose people like me. · 2 hours ago
Come on man we need a bit of solidarity here. The Social Cons agree very much with you on economic issues. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt on the other things they really care about. I don't always agree with social cons on social issues ( I do support them on abortion and euthanasia though). I don't get their stand on gay marriage, contraception, and intelligent design, but I can respect the fact that they don't deserve to be branded as apostates and monsters for thinking marriage should be heterosexual, contraception is immoral, or the world and man was made by God. I think given time they will come to think about these issues like I do. If they don't ever come to agree with me, then so what...I don't care enough to be upset.
Oct '10
Re: What We're in For
David Williamson
I recall that the vast majority of Americans are religious, dare I say Judeo-Christian, ...
The secular liberals are so noisy that we tend to think they are the majority, but they ain't.
I wish I understood why that majority is so easily intimidated by that noisy pack of secular fundamentalist blowhards. How did we go from the Declaration of Independence, with its unambiguous, forceful religiosity, to being a people frightened by a picture of a candidate and well-wishers praying … in a church?
Jul '10
Re: What We're in For
wmartin:
For Thomas Jefferson, religion was a particularly private matter. In an 1809 letter to a Philadelphia friend, Jefferson wrote that "religion is not the subject for you and me; neither of us know the religious opinions of the other; that is a matter between our Maker and ourselves."216 In an 1813 letter to Richard Rush, Jefferson wrote: "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker, in which no other, and far less the public had a right to intermeddle..."217 In an 1814 letter, Jefferson wrote: "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man's and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend's or our foe's, are exactly the right."
Also, Dr. Matthew Spalding has written extensively on the subject.
Oct '10
Re: What We're in For
the obama admin is smart to not back down on the contraceptive issue (for now), because it helps guys like santorum and it transforms the GOP primary into more about social issues than the economy or obamacare.
I do think the obama admin will back down in the end, but will time it only after santorum has the nomination, or after a long bloody primary process. here's why a santorum candidacy will be problematic for the republicans in the fall.
Jan '11
Re: What We're in For
Chris Deleon
It is true that many of the Founders liked to use indirect references to God such as "Providence" or "the Almighty" and did not often mention Jesus by name. That is in line with the style of writing and speaking of the day.
There is some truth to that, but not nearly as much as is commonly believed. Direct invocations of Christ were common in America in the late 18th century, though (relatively) rare among the leading founders.
Jan '11
Re: What We're in For
katievs
Tom Meyer
For the record, Washington['s] personal beliefs were closer to Deism or Ethical Monotheism than anything approaching normative Christianity. ·
Deists don't believe God intervenes in human history or confers benefits in response to prayer.
I stand entirely by what I said.
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 4:32pmApr '11
Re: What We're in For
Dan Hanson:
On almost every economic issue, I'm about as far right as you can go. People like me should have a natural home in the Republican party, but if it becomes the party of creationism, school prayer, anti gay marriage, and another round of the endless abortion debate, you'll lose people like me. · 8 hours ago
Yeah! And don't think the devout, normal, pro-lifers like it any better being in the same party as Godless, sexually degenerate baby-killers.
Go soak your head until you stop being so narrow minded! You don't want even to stand on the sidelines of our battles, let alone help fight them, but you want us to fight your battles. Give me a moment while I persuade myself what a good deal that is. Well, OK, but you gotta agree to sell me those magic beans, too.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
There has to be a better way to have this discussion.
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
Which discussion is that? At least people are talking to each other—or were.
The discussion that Troy sees Obama bellowing through cuts deep into people's amour-propre and sense of justification. For Liberal Fascists, the latter is even more intense than for Christians, since religion is subsumed into their politics, where it appears as moral posturing. We have profound disagreements on moral issues and what is allowable in the public square, and their resolution promises to be a judgment on one side or the other.
Since what we should be depends more on what we were at the beginning than on what we are today, people try to recruit the past. Were the founders typical WASPs, attending church as a respectable responsibility but abhorring any sign of enthusiasm? Was Jefferson an infidel, or a theist chary of letting his theology touch his public office? Did Lincoln think slavery was a lot of bad karma, or did he subscribe to a divine economy of justice wherein "every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword"?
Let's talk.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Grendel
Which discussion is that? At least people are talking to each other—or were.
One of the things I love about Ricochet is the civil discourse. I was trying to politely suggest that perhaps "go soak your head," etc. is not the best way to make progress here. "Profound disagreements on moral issues" should, I hope, be addressed by us with serious arguments and respect for those who disagree.
(I really do try to save the sermons for church – but you asked!)
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
Dan Hanson: If the Republican party tries to run a campaign on social issues, it will get beat so badly in the next election it could damage the party dramatically.
If Rick Santorum is nominated, it virtually guarantees a strong third-party run by someone, or it will mean a Gary Johnson-led libertarian party will pick up a record high number of votes - maybe as high as 15% - in the next election. That will doom the Republicans.
---
On almost every economic issue, I'm about as far right as you can go. People like me should have a natural home in the Republican party, but if it becomes the party of creationism, school prayer, anti gay marriage, and another round of the endless abortion debate, you'll lose people like me. · 21 hours ago
Yep.
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
Right. However, I was not addressing a moral issue. I was addressing his declaration that if the Republican party paid more than lip service to people with whom he disagreed he would take his marbles and go home. I was pointing out that such sentiments cut both ways.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Grendel, I was trying to capture both of your last two comments. My main point, which I must not have made clear: Let's try to be civil.
Aug '10
Re: What We're in For
I agree about the civility. We don't need to roll our eyes at each other and throw insults to make our points.
The fact is, there are many people in the U.S. who describe themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Over 40% of the electorate, in fact. Those are the people 'in play' in this election. They broke for Obama in the last election because he made vague promises of fiscal conservatism and an end to the culture wars. They ran away from him when he started spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave while exposing himself as a strident partisan.
So the right has a choice - it can call a truce on social issues and run a campaign based on restoring fiscal sanity and shrinking the power of the federal government, or it can put up a candidate who will spend all his political capital and good will on issues like abortion and gay marriage that the right doesn't have a hope of winning anyway, and wind up losing the next election in a landslide so large it could hurt the down-ticket races and return the Presidency and Congress to the Democrats.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Or, we can try and find some third way. For me, abortion is not a "social issue." It is THE civil rights issue of our day. The problem with a truce is that the pro-life side loses, which to me is not a real truce. Any suggestions on a way through this problem, seeing as we all share the same basic economic outlook (I think)?
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
My comment #129 addressed with satirically hyperbolic vehemence Dan Hanson's declaration that the price of his good will was holding at arms length those who think murder and sexual degeneracy are important. My comment #131 concerned in part our "Profound disagreements on moral issues" with Liberal Fascists, who, incidentally, not only live in a different civis but a different country from us.
Note that in #136, Dan Hanson has switched from an uncivil reading-out-of-the-tent mode to presenting premises and arguing to a conclusion about tactics. Like you I disagree with him, but I find his presentation to be all things admirable.